Author
Topic: do crop sensors really add reach? (Read 33811 times)

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

And it also cost less than the 5D2 and is a newer model and 7 is a larger prime number than 5 so it is actually 197.2x the resolving power of a 5D2 when not distance limited and 10,371.032x the resolving power when distance limited.

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

Camera shake? Tripod shake? The 7D has one of the smallest DSLR pixel pitches, only surpassed by Sony's 24mp APS-C sensors (which are actually 1.5x crop, so the difference is not as much as it sounds.) Like people have been saying about the D800: It really shows the lack of quality in your glass. Same goes for the 7D, only more so. At 100% crop, while the 7D WILL have more detail than the 5D II, unless you have the best glass money can buy that offers an MTF to match, it'll appear a bit soft. I don't think it has anything to do with an overly strong low-pass filter. I think it is simply that you need an order of magnitude better camera stability (along with a great lens) to produce ultracrisp 100% crop output like the 5D II can. The 5D II, with its 2.25x larger pixels, is somewhat forgiving. The 7D is entirely unforgiving. Normalize image size, either direction, in a focal-length limited scenario and the benefits of the 5D II IQ will largely disappear (although not entirely...it definitely has better very high ISO performance...i.e. ISO1600+ performance).

I own the EF 100-400mm lens and use it for my bird photography. I also rented the new EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS a couple months ago. Even with a 2x TC attached, the 300mm lens (@ 600mm w/ 2x) blew my 100-400 to smithereens. There was zero contest...Canon's latest glass is almost an unholy level of good. With the 1.4x TC for 420mm, it was like a match made in heaven with the 7D. The results were unbelievable. I used to blame the 7D for my IQ problems. Now, I blame the 100-400mm lens. Don't get me wrong, it is a great lens, but its an old lens, and its age most definitely shows when used on the 7D. I'd say any lens not a recently released (post-2009 release) and a Mark II generation with 4-stop IS at least (if it has IS) will show its age with a 7D.

It is up to each individual to decide if THAT particular trait of the 7D, its unbelievable demand on lenses, is a positive or a negative. The 7D has the potential to trounce even the 1D X for reach and detail, but you would need a kit so expensive you'd probably feel like a twit using the 7D with that kit. ;P

yeah the 300 2.8 even with TCs is great on the 7D for that sort of thing

Logged

Cannon Man

I'm confused about most the comments here. Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

Assuming money was no object, a 1D X with a 600mm f/4 L II IS and a pair of Mark III TC's is definitely the way to go. I don't think money can currently buy a better set of gear for a nature fan.

Money is not the only limitation. I use my 7D a lot in wilderness hikes, and the key limitation there is weight. Added to camping gear, food &c, 7D with 100-400 and one or two smaller lenses and light-weight tripod I end up carrying over 30kg in my back for a week - while I just might be able to cope with a 1DX, there's no way I could take a 600mm f/4.

I'm confused about most the comments here. Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

And why exactly are your pictures shot with a rebel so bad? Is it because of the sensor or because you can't focus right?

I'm confused about most the comments here. Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

Simply put, the 7D and the T2i, all other things being equal (i.e. ignoring other quality attributes such as the AF system), in a focal-length limited scenario, DO offer better IQ (mathematically, which can be seen in the real world when used right). The 7D will produce images with 225% the amount of detail as the 5D II for any given focal length. No amount of upscaling of the 5D II image, regardless of whether they still look good, can compare to that. The quality of the image sensor is not dictated by the quality of the camera body it is housed within. The 7D is a professional-grade camera, even if it is Canon's cheapest professional-grade camera. The exact same sensor in the 7D is also used in the T2i, as well as in every other 18mp APS-C camera Canon makes.

If you are getting a mere 1% of keepers with a camera like the 7D or even the T2i, then the problem is not the camera...it's the user.

PackLight

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

Camera shake? Tripod shake? The 7D has one of the smallest DSLR pixel pitches, only surpassed by Sony's 24mp APS-C sensors (which are actually 1.5x crop, so the difference is not as much as it sounds.) Like people have been saying about the D800: It really shows the lack of quality in your glass. Same goes for the 7D, only more so. At 100% crop, while the 7D WILL have more detail than the 5D II, unless you have the best glass money can buy that offers an MTF to match, it'll appear a bit soft. I don't think it has anything to do with an overly strong low-pass filter. I think it is simply that you need an order of magnitude better camera stability (along with a great lens) to produce ultracrisp 100% crop output like the 5D II can. The 5D II, with its 2.25x larger pixels, is somewhat forgiving. The 7D is entirely unforgiving. Normalize image size, either direction, in a focal-length limited scenario and the benefits of the 5D II IQ will largely disappear (although not entirely...it definitely has better very high ISO performance...i.e. ISO1600+ performance).

I own the EF 100-400mm lens and use it for my bird photography. I also rented the new EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS a couple months ago. Even with a 2x TC attached, the 300mm lens (@ 600mm w/ 2x) blew my 100-400 to smithereens. There was zero contest...Canon's latest glass is almost an unholy level of good. With the 1.4x TC for 420mm, it was like a match made in heaven with the 7D. The results were unbelievable. I used to blame the 7D for my IQ problems. Now, I blame the 100-400mm lens. Don't get me wrong, it is a great lens, but its an old lens, and its age most definitely shows when used on the 7D. I'd say any lens not a recently released (post-2009 release) and a Mark II generation with 4-stop IS at least (if it has IS) will show its age with a 7D.

It is up to each individual to decide if THAT particular trait of the 7D, its unbelievable demand on lenses, is a positive or a negative. The 7D has the potential to trounce even the 1D X for reach and detail, but you would need a kit so expensive you'd probably feel like a twit using the 7D with that kit. ;P

Well, actually I wasn't that serious.

But you are correct about the supertele's. While the new II versions are super sharp, so were the old versions. The improvement with the new 2x convertor is great as well. I have the version I 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4. The 100x400 can't even be considered in the same class with these lenses. Just like the difference you saw with the lenses, the 7D and 5D II are not even in the same class with the 1D IV, not just in AF but in many other ways.

The 7D and all crop bodies do have draw backs when photographing wildlife, because it seems we always give up something to gain something. We gain some resolution and AF ability over the 5D, (Not 4.5 times the resolution though and not a full 2.25 either ). Then we loose some some of the range we have with DOF. We loose some of our light which makes it a harder battle when trying to get enough speed and keep the ISO low. Our range of ISO is much tighter because of noise, most wildlife moves in the early morning or evening and this makes those times tougher. The 7D picture files tend to have a flatter appearance than the 5D II and most certainly the 1D IV's, creating that illusion of depth (the 3D look everyone talks about) is much harder to create with the 7D than the other two bodies. Then there is the Post Processing, with a 7D file I have to work it to make it all it can be where the 1D IV I almost have to do nothing.

Here is probably a big reason that the 7D isn't all that the specs make it out to be. I believe the 7D sensor is a fine sensor however I also believe that Canon has purposely dumbed down the files from the 7D with their firmware so that it would not produce files that initially come out looking better than the high end bodies. Notice the 1D X vs 1D C debate going on in another thread, and the complaints that they feel Canon is charging $6 to $7K more for just firmware.

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

Camera shake? Tripod shake? The 7D has one of the smallest DSLR pixel pitches, only surpassed by Sony's 24mp APS-C sensors (which are actually 1.5x crop, so the difference is not as much as it sounds.) Like people have been saying about the D800: It really shows the lack of quality in your glass. Same goes for the 7D, only more so. At 100% crop, while the 7D WILL have more detail than the 5D II, unless you have the best glass money can buy that offers an MTF to match, it'll appear a bit soft. I don't think it has anything to do with an overly strong low-pass filter. I think it is simply that you need an order of magnitude better camera stability (along with a great lens) to produce ultracrisp 100% crop output like the 5D II can. The 5D II, with its 2.25x larger pixels, is somewhat forgiving. The 7D is entirely unforgiving. Normalize image size, either direction, in a focal-length limited scenario and the benefits of the 5D II IQ will largely disappear (although not entirely...it definitely has better very high ISO performance...i.e. ISO1600+ performance).

I own the EF 100-400mm lens and use it for my bird photography. I also rented the new EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS a couple months ago. Even with a 2x TC attached, the 300mm lens (@ 600mm w/ 2x) blew my 100-400 to smithereens. There was zero contest...Canon's latest glass is almost an unholy level of good. With the 1.4x TC for 420mm, it was like a match made in heaven with the 7D. The results were unbelievable. I used to blame the 7D for my IQ problems. Now, I blame the 100-400mm lens. Don't get me wrong, it is a great lens, but its an old lens, and its age most definitely shows when used on the 7D. I'd say any lens not a recently released (post-2009 release) and a Mark II generation with 4-stop IS at least (if it has IS) will show its age with a 7D.

It is up to each individual to decide if THAT particular trait of the 7D, its unbelievable demand on lenses, is a positive or a negative. The 7D has the potential to trounce even the 1D X for reach and detail, but you would need a kit so expensive you'd probably feel like a twit using the 7D with that kit. ;P

Well, actually I wasn't that serious.

But you are correct about the supertele's. While the new II versions are super sharp, so were the old versions. The improvement with the new 2x convertor is great as well. I have the version I 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4. The 100x400 can't even be considered in the same class with these lenses. Just like the difference you saw with the lenses, the 7D and 5D II are not even in the same class with the 1D IV, not just in AF but in many other ways.

The 7D and all crop bodies do have draw backs when photographing wildlife, because it seems we always give up something to gain something. We gain some resolution and AF ability over the 5D, (Not 4.5 times the resolution though and not a full 2.25 either ). Then we loose some some of the range we have with DOF. We loose some of our light which makes it a harder battle when trying to get enough speed and keep the ISO low. Our range of ISO is much tighter because of noise, most wildlife moves in the early morning or evening and this makes those times tougher. The 7D picture files tend to have a flatter appearance than the 5D II and most certainly the 1D IV's, creating that illusion of depth (the 3D look everyone talks about) is much harder to create with the 7D than the other two bodies. Then there is the Post Processing, with a 7D file I have to work it to make it all it can be where the 1D IV I almost have to do nothing.

Here is probably a big reason that the 7D isn't all that the specs make it out to be. I believe the 7D sensor is a fine sensor however I also believe that Canon has purposely dumbed down the files from the 7D with their firmware so that it would not produce files that initially come out looking better than the high end bodies. Notice the 1D X vs 1D C debate going on in another thread, and the complaints that they feel Canon is charging $6 to $7K more for just firmware.

While I agree about the 7D photos looking a bit drab right out of the camera, I wouldn't go so far as to blame canon directly for explicitly making it so. The 1D IV has about twice the maximum saturation point as the 7D, and the 5D III has about three times the maximum saturation point of the 7D. That leads to a much higher S/N, which leads to richer results and less noise at all ISO settings. I also believe the 7D has a slightly weaker CFA than the 1D IV (although the 5D III also has a weaker CFA), which is more about improving S/N as much as possible with those tiny pixels than purposely drabifying the output.

Personally, when I've used a 5D II, I felt it's color output was also a little drab too, although not quite as much as the 7D. The 1D IV RAW files I've played with all felt much richer, in every aspect (especially tonality, shadow falloff), than any other Canon camera I have used, by a significant degree. Canon intentionally puts more effort into the 1D series of cameras, so it should be expected that they would put more effort into every aspect, including IQ, over the cheaper relatives. I suspect that the lower quality of Canon's non-1D cameras is more a facet of their cheaper cost, and less intensive per-camera quality control and fine craftsmanship than you get with the vastly more expensive 1D bodies. I have not used a 5D III, but from what I can tell, its native camera output is more becoming of its price tag, so maybe Canon is starting to put more effort into their second-ranking cameras now (and I wouldn't be surprised, given the kind of competition they are experiencing from all sides).

PackLight

While I agree about the 7D photos looking a bit drab right out of the camera, I wouldn't go so far as to blame canon directly for explicitly making it so.

Who would we blame other than Canon. I blame Canon, they are responsible for all of our camera woe's. It is about product placement, if you owned a camera company wouldn't you have a staff that combed over your newest bodies IQ to make sure it fit in its slot and didn't outperform the cameras above it?

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

While I agree about the 7D photos looking a bit drab right out of the camera, I wouldn't go so far as to blame canon directly for explicitly making it so.

Who would we blame other than Canon. I blame Canon, they are responsible for all of our camera woe's. It is about product placement, if you owned a camera company wouldn't you have a staff that combed over your newest bodies IQ to make sure it fit in its slot and didn't outperform the cameras above it?

But there are so many other ways the 1D-series bodies outperform. Canon doesn't NEED to "protect" their flagship line like people seem to think they do. It is a matter of workmanship. If you want the supreme, creme of the crop, hand-picked, hand-crafted quality, you have to pay for it, no which way about it. I would offer that the 7D is largely automated in manufacture, where as all of Canon's highly expensive products, like the 1D series bodies and all of their high end L-series telephoto lenses (as well as many of their other telephoto lenses, like the TS-E line) are meticulously hand crafted and hand tested. That's why there are so few of them on the market...they are CRAFTED, rather than simply MANUFACTURED. You get what you pay for. If the choice is between $7000 or $1300, of course the $7000 camera is going to outperform on every level, in significant and nuanced ways. That doesn't mean the $1300 camera can't or won't do some things better, though.

I'm confused about most the comments here. Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

you'd be surprised.... filter and re-scale them to put the same pixels per bird or use NR until detail is even on both and the 7D makes a nicer file than the 5D2 when distance limited in terms of noise and errors, you end up with a tiny bit BETTER SNR and less de-bayer artifacts and moire and such, i may be able to dig up my examples

now the 1DX has such superb SNR that even scaling the 7D to the same detail you will still end up with a bit worse SNR there (although again less de-bayer artifacts and such) but when noise is not a really major issue the 7D will pull in a lot more detail than the 1DX give same subject, subject distance, lens, shooting location and proper shutter speed and focusing to get the most out of each system.

The 7D has majorly split greens on the CFA so there is a trace of softening during debayer in order to avoid severe mazing artifacts (remember all the mazing artifact complaints the first few weeks of the 7D release before the raw converters were updated to take into account the large degree of green split). It is amazing that the raw developers found a way to only barely pinge resolution and not massacre it considering how split the greens are, as it, it's just a tiny bit of micro-contrast lost compared to what a non-split green 18MP aps-c sensor could deliver.

I'm confused about most the comments here. Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

you'd be surprised.... filter and re-scale them to put the same pixels per bird or use NR until detail is even on both and the 7D makes a nicer file than the 5D2 when distance limited in terms of noise and errors, you end up with a tiny bit BETTER SNR and less de-bayer artifacts and moire and such, i may be able to dig up my examples

now the 1DX has such superb SNR that even scaling the 7D to the same detail you will still end up with a bit worse SNR there (although again less de-bayer artifacts and such) but when noise is not a really major issue the 7D will pull in a lot more detail than the 1DX give same subject, subject distance, lens, shooting location and proper shutter speed and focusing to get the most out of each system.

To date, I've been blown away by 1D X upscales. DR aside, people have been comparing 1D X upscales to D800 natives, and the 1D X still seems to take the sharpness and detail crown as frequently as the D800. Not sure if a 1D X would hold up as well to say double the D800 size...if you really need massive enlargement capabilities, the D800 (or whatever 40mp+ camera Canon releases in the future) are really the only way to go if you can't afford MFD. But it is surprising it maintains its sharpness and detail to literally double it's size.

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

(Said the guy who's 7D is gathering dust...)

I didn't know how bad I really was till today.

You do realize that the 7D has a pixel density 2.58 times that of your 1D X. This of course will make it 2.58 times better.